After receiving some Canon 5D prints recently, only sized at 8X10, I found it a bit distracting that some prints about 3 years back made with a Contax G2 and 28mm and 45mm lenses, negative film, and printed to 8X12, look much better in these ways:
No particular order, though I have to say the "feeling" of anything digital I have seen and anything film I have on hand is "very" different, be it 35mm-4X5.
I have used about every camera that supposedly looks like film be it FF or something from say, Sigma with Foveon tech or Fuji/Kodak with the Kodak sensor reminiscent in some way or another to the Leica M8 (never used). I have not used anything larger than DSLR, but don't know why it would make a difference when I see it on the print where it matters most.
In the end, I have not seen, to this day, a digital image look like a film image. I can always seem some nuance/issue with digital capture that distinguishes itself in a poor way from film. I prefer clean and clear images, hence why there is a reason to shoot with larger film dependent on final print size.
When looking at web images, digital capture can look phenomenal, simply awesome. But on print, I just do not see it and have not seen it.
There is a guy that shoots with a Phase 45 setup and I will be able to view his prints. He does this as a hobby and works hard to follow a lot of what is out there regarding final print quality and simply technical merits of getting a very good image. So I have rather high and low expectations of this person's work, especially after thinking this person's Canon 5D prints would plain/simply be superior to even 35mm negative film images. It was a big time shock when all I wanted to do with the 5D images was do what I have wanted to do with my own digital experience, and that is to tweak the image as much as possible to make it look good and subjectively similar to film with film's attributes mentioned above.
Am I the only one alone in this digital vs. film "prints" thing? If not, I don't understand why people ever bring "resolution" into digital/film discussions if the print from digital is never going to look as good to the eye as what the film image looks like OR even vice versa=people that feel a digital print looks aesthetically nicer on a whole and of course resolution shouldn't mean squat to them either.
Don't want this to be a digital vs. film debate, but I cannot find a way out of this digital "look" that lacks the "quality" film provides...and this is only speaking on behalf of color work. Won't even get into b/w...